תני חדא, in one ברייתא we learned: המביא גט בספינה כמביא בארץ ישראל. If you bring a גט in a ship, which means bring if you write the גט in a ship, it has the same דין as if you wrote it in ארץ ישראל. We know from before that when you bring a גט, you write a גט and you bring it from חוץ לארץ, the one that brings it must say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. He must say, \"I saw it written, I saw it signed.\" If you bring a גט from ארץ ישראל, you do not have to say. Here, the ברייתא says if you bring a גט in a ship, and the way רש״י learns the פשט, רש״י says clearly that we're talk the גמרא here is talking about the ship is in a river in ארץ ישראל. That means within the borders of ארץ ישראל there's a river. And in the river, there's a ship. In the ship, you write a גט. And someone is taking the גט from the ship. So, this ברייתא says it has the same דין as if you bring it from any place in ארץ ישראל and therefore, you do not have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. If it's if it's, yeah, in a river in ארץ ישראל. תניא אידך, another ברייתא says, כמביא בחוץ לארץ. פארקערט, that if you bring a גט, means you write a גט in a ship, and as we're learning now it's a ship in the river within the borders of ארץ ישראל, if you bring a גט from there, you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. It's a contradiction in two ברייתות. אמר רבי ירמיה, רבי ירמיה said, not קשיא yet. Inside ארץ ישראל. אמר רבי ירמיה, so רבי ירמיה answered, לא קשיא. There's no קשיא. I have an answer to the סתירה, to the contradiction. הא רבי יהודה הא רבנן. It's a מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the רבנן, and we'll see in a moment that there is a certain מחלוקת between רבי יהודה and the רבנן, and that מחלוקת is the root for these two ברייתות. What is the מחלוקת? דתנן, it says in a משנה: עפר חוץ לארץ הבא בספינה לארץ, if someone took sand from outside of ארץ ישראל, put and brought it and put it into a ship, and planted in the ship that's in ארץ ישראל, חייב במעשר ובשביעית. So anything that grows is חייב במעשר. Just like anything that grows in ארץ ישראל חייב במעשר, and it's שמיטה, you can't work on it, all the דינים of ארץ ישראל will apply to this also. אמר רבי יהודה, רבי יהודה said, \"No. אימתי? When is this דין that it's like ארץ ישראל, that anything that grows is חייב במעשר? בזמן שהספינה גוששת. It's only if the ship is touching the ground, is anchored into the ground, is grounded. So then, anything that grows in the ship has a דין of ארץ ישראל and you are חייב במעשר. אבל אין הספינה גוששת, פטור. But if the ship is not grounded, then whatever you plant in the ship is פטור from מעשר.\" Which means it doesn't have a דין of ארץ ישראל. So what but רבי ירמיה was saying the same מחלוקת we have there will be here.

According to the רבנן who say that a ship that's inside ארץ ישראל is חייב במעשר, so it means it has a דין of ארץ ישראל, so therefore if you write a גט over there, it has a דין of ארץ ישראל, and you don't have to say. But according to רבי יהודה, it's not like that. רבי יהודה says that if it's in a ship, it's פטור from מעשר unless it's grounded. But if it's not grounded, it's פטור. So it's פטור from מעשר, that means that the the water of מ'וועל זען, מ'וועל זען. So according to רבי יהודה who says it's not called it's not חייב במעשר, which means that the water is not ארץ ישראל, ממילא if you write a גט there, it's not ארץ ישראל, and it has a דין of חוץ לארץ that you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. This is רבי ירמיה. אמר אביי, אביי אמר, אביי says, \"No, הא והא רבי יהודה. Both could go according to רבי יהודה. Both ברייתות. Side the ברייתא where it says it's like ארץ ישראל, side the ברייתא says חוץ לארץ. But לא קשיא, כאן בזמן שאין הספינה גוששת, כאן בזמן שהספינה גוששת. The one that says it's like ארץ ישראל is talking in a case where the ship is grounded. So therefore whatever grows is חייב במעשר, even according to רבי יהודה. Therefore if it's חייב במעשר, it's like ארץ ישראל, so you don't have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. If it's the other ברייתא where it says it's חוץ לארץ, is it's not grounded, ממילא whatever you grow is not חייב במעשר, so it's not ארץ ישראל, and ממילא you don't have to say.\" Okay. Then the גמרא says weiter, רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר, רב נחמן בר יצחק says, \"No. בנהרות דארץ ישראל דכולי עלמא לא

פליגי, that if the ship would be in a river inside the borders of ארץ ישראל, no argument, and רש״י says: דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דארץ ישראל נינהו, it's like ארץ ישראל, ואף על גב דאין ספינה גוששת, even though the ship is not touching the ground, even according to רבי יהודה, according to anybody, it's like ארץ ישראל. And רש״י: דטעמא דגט לאו משום יניקה מן הקרקע כמעשר, what does גט have to do with whether it's חייב במעשר or not?\" not. But הילכך לא שנא נהר ולא שנא יבשה, it's no difference, it's always ארץ ישראל. כי פליגי בים הגדול. The מחלוקת is in the Mediterranean. And he goes into whole אריכות that there are certain even though the border the western border of ארץ ישראל is the ים הגדול, the ים התיכון, nevertheless, a little bit outside is still ארץ has a דין of ארץ ישראל. Talking about islands. Well, here it's for a different reason. Outside. Outside, למשל, the ארץ ישראלדיק למשל border fell like this, the ארץ ישראלדיק border goes like this, it's not straight line. It goes like this. So one opinion says that anything it you make an imaginary line like this, and anything that's here is like ארץ ישראל. They do that in military. Then there's another opinion that this whole area that's כנגד ארץ ישראל is a דין of ארץ ישראל. But according to the first opinion, it's not. So what happens? He says that the מחלוקת here is, this is talking about a ship that's outside of this line, in here. According to one opinion, this is not ארץ ישראל. According to the other opinion, it is. That's the מחלוקת that we're talking about here, but not the מחלוקת of מעשר. It has nothing to do with that, because this is the גמרא here. Okay. Who's who's that was not Rashi? רבנו יצחק says. Okay. What does that got to do with the with the inland uh, or water? No, because in the water cuz the any water that's here in this area, everyone agrees is ארץ ישראל. How can you draw that conclusion on the on the water on a river inside? No, אדרבה, inside there's nothing to do with it. Inside everyone agrees is ארץ ישראל. Then, this is the whole the whole different case. It does he says, yeah, he comes says a different פשט, that the מחלוקת is not that. The מחלוקת is פשוט if this, in the case over here, is it ארץ ישראל or not, based on that מחלוקת over there, where the border whether the islands actually have a דין of ארץ ישראל or not. Okay. Comes תוספות and תוספות is like

this. When the גמרא answered, 'הא והא', I'm afraid it'll take time just the גמרא and תוספות. הא רבי יהודה והא רבנן. The first answer that the גמרא gave that the the argument between the two ברייתות whether if you write a גט in a ship in ארץ ישראל is like ארץ ישראל or not, is a מחלוקת רבי יהודה and רבנן. And the same מחלוקת based on whether if you plant in the ship, if it's חייב במעשר or not. So תוספות says like this, אף על גב דקרקעית המים הוה כארץ ישראל, even though under the water, since this is within the borders of ארץ ישראל, the the floor is ארץ ישראל, גורע הוא מובלעת דידיה. This is worse than מובלעת before. So we have to go back a little bit to the גמרא מובלעת. So I'm gonna explain. We have to go back a little bit to the גמרא before. The גמרא before said that there is a מחלוקת in the משנה. Says in the משנה, when you bring a גט from מדינת הים, which is חוץ לארץ, you must say. Then there is opinion of the משנה that the first תנא holds רקם וחגר, which are two cities which are very close to ארץ ישראל, the תנא קמא says you don't have to say. Even though it's not ארץ ישראל, border. but since it's a little bit outside of the border, but it's close, you don't have to say. Comes רבן גמליאל, and רבן גמליאל says, \"No, אף המביא מן הרקם ומן החגר. You have to say, even if it's רקם וחגר.\" Why? Because it's ב חוץ לארץ. But he agrees that כפר לודים, you don't have to say. כפר לודים is also חוץ לארץ. And the גמרא says, \"What's כפר לודים?\" כפר לודים is not only close to ארץ ישראל, that's called סמוכות. כפר לודים was מובלעת. It was swallowed in. Imagine, like we said before, by the water, uh there were places so the border is not straight, sometimes it goes like this. So any city that's in here inside, which is surrounded by all three sides of ארץ ישראל, there we don't. If it's close, you have to say, but if it's מובלע, you don't. Comes רב אלעזר and says, \"I'm telling you that even מובלע\", מובלע means swallowed in, \"you still have to say.\" Why? כדי שלא תחלוק במדינת הים. You cannot make any differences in חוץ לארץ. If חוץ לארץ has to say, חוץ לארץ has to say, and he says nothing. So we see from here that there is a סברא שלא תחלוק במדינת הים, and even when it comes to מובלע, even if it's so close to ארץ ישראל, and that's ממש swallowed into the border, makes no difference. So תוספות is asking basically here that in if מובלע has to say, because they say שלא תחלוק, over here over here, how come the רבנן say you don't have to say? And how come No. According to If you hold that this is חוץ לארץ if this is חוץ לארץ, and מובלע There is The The מחלוקת is like this, let's go. תנא קמא and רבן גמליאל say you תנא קמא says you have to say not by סמוכות, now you don't have to say. רבן גמליאל says if it's close, you do have to say. רב אלעזר says that you don't say in a case where it's, even if it's מובלע, you also have to say. But the And the תנא קמא, look, the תנא קמא and רבן גמליאל say that by מובלע you don't have to say. What is the reason you don't have to say by מובלע? Because it's so close, even though מובלע is חוץ לארץ. Now, even though מובלע is חוץ לארץ, you don't have to say, so the חומרא by the rivers, even if you'll hold like רבי יהודה that the rivers you're פטור from מעשר, but here, since it's surrounded by ארץ ישראל, you shouldn't have to say. So תוספות says, גרוע הכא ממובלעות. This is worse than מובלע. תוספות doesn't say why. Doesn't say why. Doesn't say why. So this is number one question. תוספות leaves it for our imagination, that this is If מוב- this is See, מובלע is this way, this is מובלע this way. It's certainly If the area בכלל around it is ארץ ישראל What, by regular מובלע? By here, here is, yeah, it's all it's included! Right, right! So here it should be better. So if by מובלע, if by מובלע, סיי דער תנא קמא, סיי דער רבן גמליאל says that we don't have to say, even though it's really חוץ לארץ, so why do we have to say here? So תוספות says, גרוע הכא ממובלעות. This is worse. And תוספות doesn't say why. Does it matter if it's a lake or a river? No, no. That doesn't have to be considered. Then תוספות continues, and תוספות says, ואם תאמר, תוספות asks: מה ענין גט אצל מעשר? What's the connection between גט to מעשר? And תוספות said asked the קשיא, ותו, he

brings a ראיה that you can't compare the דין of a גט to the דין of מעשר. And now I'll just say it outside. His ראיה is he says if you bring a גט, if if if you plant on the second floor in ארץ ישראל, not in the ground, you bring sand and plant on the second floor, it's פטור from מעשר. So is someone going to tell me that if you bring a גט from ארץ ישראל, if it happened to be written on the second floor, you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? Certainly not! So we see that we can't compare מעשר גט to מעשר. And תוספות says, so how come by ספינה we do compare, by the ship we compare this ענין to מעשר? So תוספות answers there's a difference: אמרי: דלא דמי, דעלייה קרקע שתחתיה בת זריעה היא. By the case of the second floor, the bottom right under the second floor, the ground, you could plant. So it has a דין וראויה להתחייב במעשר, it's fit to be חייב במעשר. But מה שאין כן בספינה, by the ship, what's under the ship is the water. And the water you cannot plant. ממילא, so the ship has a דין of פטור, it's פטור, is is like like ארץ ישראל. The water is connected, yeah. But לפועל there is water under it, לפועל is water. There is a סברא we'll get in the גמרא פֿאַרקערט, and תוספות says, but לפועל תוספות says this חילוק. Now, I want to give I want to explain this He is still חייב for sure. No, no, I said חייב, I meant פטור. He's still פטור, yeah. פטור, yeah. No, because it's פֿאַרקערט. Right, right, right. Now, I

want to explain this as a הקדמה, בכלל we can ask a פשוטע שאלה, which is when you start learning this גמרא, what בכלל, what in the world is the connection between מעשר and בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם? בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם you have to say we learned before for two reasons, מחלוקת רבה and רבא. One reason is because the people in חוץ לארץ don't know לשמה, so you have to bring it to say to לשמה. According to רבא the reason is because you will not find later עדים מצויין לקיימו. What in the world does this have to do with מעשר? If you plant it there, you're חייב במעשר, then you don't have to say it. If you're פטור במעשר, you have to say it. And even though it seems like תוספות asked that קשיא, because the קשיא of תוספות was ואם תאמר, מה ענין גט אצל מעשר? What does גט have to do with מעשר? But that wasn't תוספות's קשיא. Because if this would be תוספות's קשיא that I just said, then there is no תירוץ. תוספות's קשיא was that how can you compare גט to מעשר when I find that you don't compare it? We find that by the second floor, we don't compare it. That was the קשיא. And תוספות was מחלק that the case of the second floor is different than the ship. I'm asking a different שאלה, I'm asking, and I'm not asking, this is what מפרשים say, וואָס פֿאַר אַ קלעפּ עס האָט בכלל, it makes no sense, a person with a ביסל שׂכל it makes no sense. It has to do with מעשר, it has nothing to do with מעשר! We're talking about bringing a גט, has nothing to do with the קדושה of ארץ ישראל, it has to do with technical reasons whether it is בקי לשמה or not, whether they are עדים, you will find עדים, and in this case being it's a river within ארץ ישראל, they're בקי לשמה and the עדים are there like a regular ארץ ישראל. So what's the חילוק if you're חייב במעשר? Especially according to רבי יהודה, if it's touching the ground, not touching the ground, that will make a חילוק בפני נכתב? אלא מאי, אלא מאי that's exactly what I want to say. That's what, and מפרשים say this, סיי דער חתם סופר, סיי דער פני יהושע, they all say this וואָרט, that the פשט here is, this is based on the כלל that we said before, שלא תחלוק במדינת הים, that we cannot make differences. That's the ווארט. We cannot make differences in חוץ לארץ. And therefore, if the דין is that you plant over there, it's פטור ממעשר, then basically it's מדינת הים. If it's מדינת הים, we have the rule that even if people know לשמה and if people find עדים to be מקיים, if it has if it's the דין of of of מדינת הים, we can't make חילוקים. We can't make חילוקים. So now that we have this כלל, שלא תחלוק במדינת הים, this is the reason why תוספות in the beginning was wondering. And תוספות in the beginning said that how come when it comes to מובלעות, the תנא קמא and רבן גמליאל say we do make a חילוק? It's only ר' אלעזר that said that we don't. תנא קמא says רקם וחגר you don't have to say, and אשקלון, וכפר לודים ולוד. Even רבן גמליאל agrees that if it's מובלע, if it's swallowed in, you don't have to say. איי, why don't we make a rule, שלא תחלוק במדינת הים? Since it's חוץ לארץ, you can't make differences. A סימן that not always do we say that. If we don't always say that, so תוספות asks the שאלה, so how come here we do say it? This is the whole thing. Here, the whole base of the גמרא why we have to say בפני נכתב is because since it has the name חוץ לארץ, you have to say. But that's doch it's not true. מובלעות has a name חוץ לארץ, and we still have to say. Why is this? And תוספות says, גרועה, it's worse. And that's our שאלה: Why in the world is this worse? לכאורה על פי שכל, it's better, not worse. It's better to be closer to ארץ ישראל than being worse than ארץ ישראל. So that's one שאלה we have to understand. Another שאלה we have to understand is רב נחמן בר יצחק argues. רב נחמן בר יצחק says no, in ארץ ישראל, if it's a נהר within ארץ ישראל, everyone agrees that you don't have to say. And he says why? Because this reason טאקע. Because טעמא דגט לאו משום יניקה מן הקרקע. What does גט have to do with מעשר? So what? But didn't we just finish saying now that there is a שכל behind it? We just finished saying now that there is a סברא, because it has a name of חוץ לארץ. אין הכי נמי, people know לשמה and all, but לא תחלוק במדינת הים, there's the סברא of לא תחלוק. So why why what's the argument? Why does רב נחמן בר יצחק argue? So we have to understand what is תלוי the מחלוקת, that we explain that in this case, even though it's ארץ ישראל, but if the דין is that you're פטור ממעשר, you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם because of the logic not to make a difference within מדינת הים, and according to רב נחמן בר יצחק we don't say it. Then there's another thing. When the גמרא לכתחילה said that we have the two ברייתות, one says if you bring a גט in the ship it's like חוץ לארץ or like ארץ ישראל, and we answered it's a מחלוקת between the רבנן, רש\"י had said that this is a case שנכתב בספינה, וקסלקא דעתך דבנהרות דארץ ישראל קאמר, that we're learning now that it happens to be in the river of ארץ ישראל. Why does רש\"י say that? Why do we have to say before that it's דווקא in the rivers of ארץ ישראל? The מהר\"ם שיף asks the שאלה. The מהר\"ם שיף says if this would be not in the rivers in ארץ ישראל, wouldn't we have the same Let's say it would be a river or the water that's in the outside of ארץ ישראל. In that area outside of ארץ ישראל which was within the borders, which has a דין of ארץ ישראל, what would be over there? The same thing. According to the חכמים, since this is called ארץ ישראל, it's it's חייב במעשר. According to ר' יהודה, if it's not touching the ground, it's not חייב במעשר, and the same מחלוקת would be. Why does רש\"י say that this first thing, the way we're learning, is בנהרות בתוך ארץ ישראל, in the rivers of ארץ ישראל? As if saying that if this would be water outside of ארץ ישראל, this wouldn't apply. Why not, according to the first טראכט? In other words, the מחלוקת the גמרא makes here is has nothing to do with where the water is. As long as it's water that has a דין of ארץ ישראל, the place is ארץ ישראל. The מחלוקת is, does it have to touch the ground to be חייב במעשר, or it doesn't have to touch the ground to be חייב במעשר? So that same thing would be if it's with inside the border of ארץ ישראל, or if it's the water right outside of ארץ ישראל which has a דין of ארץ ישראל, all the same. So why does רש\"י הכא גאר say here that we're, according to the בנהרות דארץ ישראל קאמר, we're talking rivers of ארץ ישראל? What should what should רש\"י have said? Any water? Yeah, any water that's שייך to ארץ ישראל, that's, yeah, but not נהרות of ארץ ישראל. The מהר\"ם שיף asks a שאלה, so משמע is רש\"י that he is saying דווקא that this פשט is if it's within ארץ ישראל, and if it's outside of ארץ ישראל, as long as it has a דין of ארץ ישראל. He could be making a point that it's even stronger to say because there's no if you want to say it's outside and you have to By by saying that, it's משמע the other one not. If he would say this also, even this, but we don't know if it's even this. You could say a point, if he would say both, he'd say even if it's in ארץ ארץ ישראל there's a סברא according to רב יהודה that it's not. But רש״י doesn't say it. רש״י says we're talking about in the נהרות of ארץ ישראל. Why? It's talking about could be ארץ ישראל, could be outside of that. That's not the point here. See later on אליבא דרב נחמן בר יצחק, that's the whole point. The whole point that it's outside of ארץ ישראל, in an area where there is a

מחלוקת. So that's the מחלוקת. But here this is not the point. The point is touching or not touching. Whether it's within ארץ ישראל or outside of ארץ ישראל, wherever the water has a דין of ארץ ישראל. Why doesn't רש״י say that? So to get to this, to explain this, you could say like this: it's all בהמשך to combine ענינים that we spoke before. We said one thing, that saying בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם is very important for the גט. As much as the גמרא said before that בעצם, the question of לשמה, let's say, is a very, very weak, weak problem, because רוב people know לשמה, even in חוץ לארץ. And the גמרא said that this סופרים, סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי, they all know. רבנן הוא דאצריך, although the רבנן had a certain suspicion, maybe there are some people who maybe don't know לשמה, maybe he found a גט, whatever it is. Nevertheless, לפועל, since there was a חשש, that means that a גט that's brought from מדינת הים, and if you don't say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, there's a חשש in the כשרות of the גט. A

חשש in the כשרות of the גט is a very, very important issue. Could be a small חשש, but of a major matter, of a main thing, a חשש in the כשרות of the גט, okay? So by saying בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, what we do is we verify the כשרות of the גט. Now we had a שאלה: is this כשרות of the גט, the verification of the כשרות of the גט, a דין outside of the גט concerning the גט, or is it part of the גט itself? Now, if it's very important, if it's part of the גט itself, then it's much stronger, cause it has many דינים we say that it becomes ממש part of the גט. Not just the קיום. Now this חקירה, whether this שאלה whether it's part of the גט or not, I'm just, it's not נוגע to the whole המשך, I'm just bringing it out, could be dependent on another חקירה. Another חקירה would be: is there a real חשש? The חכמים basically went in two stages. Now I don't mean דווקא two times, but two stages. First the חכמים came and said, they thought about it, there's a חשש here, it's a חשש, we have to make sure. Then the חכמים came and said: you know what, we could be מברר the חשש. How can we be מברר the חשש? בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. Or you could say that לכתחילה the רבנן never said there is a חשש and then said to be מברר, they לכתחילה came and said, that even though there is no חשש בעצם, we want you to say בפני נכתב בפני נחתם to take care of it. So remember we said that that's a נפקא מינה whether בעצם you needed two עדים. If it's בעצם a חשש, you need two עדים. Then the רבנן came and took off one. Or not, they לכתחילה said there is no חשש מדאורייתא, we want one עד to come and say. Now if you say there is חשש, that means that בעצם there is a problem with the גט. Then came the רבנן and said, we make sure that the גט is good by saying בפני נכתב. So that is more part of the גט, cause you make a חשש in the גט, the גט is פסול. On the other hand, if you say they לכתחילה didn't make a חשש, all they said was, we want you to say בפני נכתב to be מברר, that that looks like an addition to the גט. The גט is כשר, and here we want something in addition. So it's נוגע to the גט, but that's not part of the כשרות of the גט itself, okay? But it would make sense that the חכמים, being very מחמיר in this ענין, wanted that it should not only be a דין to verify the גט, but this is part of the כשרות of the גט. In order to do that, to make it more sure that it's part of the כשרות of the גט, you know what the חכמים did? That's what לכאורה you could say. They, besides saying a דין in the גט that when you bring a גט from מדינת הים you have to say בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם, they made it a דין in the מקום. They made a דין in חוץ לארץ, that there is a דין on the מקום, that in the מקום of חוץ לארץ, it depends on this מקום, so it's כאילו besides the reason that we have of לשמה or עדים מצויין לקיימו, it's a דין that חוץ לארץ requires בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם. That's what they made. Now if they make חוץ לארץ require, then the question will be, how did we say before that if it's מובלעות, if it's swallowed in, even though it's חוץ לארץ, you still don't have to say, אי it's a דין on the מקום? So probably what took place is they made it with an exception. They made a דין on the מקום besides מובלעות, besides רקם וחגר, besides they made it besides. So it was נתמעט, it was excluded from the כלל of the דין of the מקום. Which this if we say so, this will explain something else, just this is a back backing it. In the beginning of the מסכתא, this just cause it starts to say they excluded Good. Ah, so yes, in the beginning of the פרק, ממש in the beginning, it says המביא גט ממדינת הים. Comes תוספות and says, so רש״י says כל חוץ לארץ קרי מדינת הים. חוץ לארץ is called מדינת הים. מדינת הים. Comes תוספות and says, why does it say מדינת הים? Why doesn't it say חוץ לארץ? So תוספות says, you know why? Because because חוץ לארץ הוה משמע כל חוץ לארץ, אפילו רקם וחגר, even the close ones, the מובלעות. That's why it says מדינת הים, which means far.

Okay? Comes the ר״ן, and the ר״ן says nah. רקם וחגר is is is so far is not excluding רקם וחגר. It's מדינת הים is much further than what רקם וחגר is is gonna be excluded. He says I'll tell you I mis- it means something else. מדינת הים is there is one side of ארץ ישראל which is the ים, and of the ים there is really no nothing there. So that's how we exclude רקם וחגר, by saying מים, like the ים where there is nothing there, so anything that's close. And he says maybe רש״י learns that, I'm not gonna go The שאלה is like this: why the fight תוספות וסייעתיה, the ר״ן, why are they looking for ways to put the exclusion of רקם וחגר into the words of the תקנה? When they made המביא גט ממדינת הים, they're finding ways that לכתחילה when they said it, רקם וחגר was excluded. Why? Because if they wouldn't put it into the words of the תקנה to exclude it, automatically, since it's a דין on the מקום, every מדינת הים. Basically, this is the the יסוד, I think, to the כלל שלא יחלקו במדינת הים. The גמרא before also said that there was a rule not to make any difference in מדינת הים. What's the logic behind it? Why not make difference in מדינת הים? So I'm saying the reason why not is because the חכמים made it a דין on the מקום, that the מקום became ממילא, no matter what, everything that falls in the category of that מקום, besides those that were excluded, you have to say is that מקום. Whether now it's שייך, it's נוגע, whether it has the reason of לשמה or it doesn't. באמת it's על דרך like I said last week בנוגע the נסרים,

when I said בנוגע the סכך, the דין that says that a נסר, a beam, that's more than four טפחים, you can't, even though you put it this way, the reason this way is because it looks like a roof, this way does not, but it became a חפצא של איסור, and the reason doesn't apply. So the same thing, if it's a דין on the מקום, it became a חפצא של איסור. We said last week בנוגע זמרה, there's a סברא that you can't sing anywhere, even though the reason was because of of of תענוג יתירה, but if it's a דין on the חפץ, You take that that that pathway, you know, And you have a problem with מובלעות, and you say and you say, you know what? I don't care if now that you know, who cares if it's called three places? It still should be Unless the חכמים excluded it לכתחילה. Oh, that's right! Unless it was excluded in the beginning. In the words that they said it's excluded, then לכתחילה never. But anything that's not excluded in the beginning is is part of it, cuz it's a דין on the מקום. Even though it has nothing to do with the מקום, the whole בפני נכתב has nothing to do with קדושת ארץ ישראל, with מעשר, with it's nothing to do, it's a דין on the Nevertheless, the חכמים made it a דין on the מקום. על דרך, I'll give another example. You get the חכמים always say that their their worry was that that outside of ארץ ישראל they wouldn't Right. But some places they were. So so But those places that are close, they were careful because they had the ישיבות, they had That's like almost like like a secondary reason, though, you're saying. No, I'm saying that was what brought them for the תקנה, but they made the תקנה so strong that they made it on the מקום. I'll give another example where we find on the מקום, which has nothing to do with the מקום, in another area altogether.

That's the area of of יום טוב, יום טוב שני של גליות. Where does יום טוב שני של גליות, why do we have two days יום טוב? Two days יום טוב we have because when they were מקדש על פי הראיה, when they were מקדש by עדים coming every month, so they had to establish ראש חודש every month, cuz always every month there was a שאלה which day would be ראש חודש. And when they established it, they sent out messengers to throughout all the אידישע places to tell them. There were places that they got there in a day, in two, or five, so by the time יום טוב came, which is the 15th day of the month, they already knew when is יום טוב. Those places that are further, the שלוחים didn't reach there on time, so they didn't know if today is the 15th or tomorrow. So they had to keep two days יום טוב. So this has nothing to do with ארץ ישראל. It just happens to be that in ארץ ישראל, most of the places figure heard it early enough, after it's all not. But in in ענין, in דין, had there been a place in ארץ ישראל which